Kerala HC upholds conviction in 1991 irrigation project scam, orders deceased officer’s heirs to pay ₹17 Lakh

Kochi: In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of two persons in connection with a corruption case linked to the Kulasekharapuram Irrigation Project. Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the appeal filed by one of the accused and modified the sentence imposed on the other, as he had passed away.

According to the prosecution, the Superintending Engineer entered into a criminal conspiracy with the contractor who executed the project, with the shared intention of gaining unlawful financial benefits. In furtherance of this conspiracy, they allegedly misused provisions of the Limited Competitive Bidding (LCB) system by adopting corrupt and illegal methods.

It was alleged that the contractor claimed payments at rates higher than what he was entitled to, and that the Superintending Engineer approved excess payments amounting to ₹8.65 lakh, thereby causing financial loss to the government.

The prosecution also contended that the third accused, an Executive Engineer, misused his official position, conspired with the contractor, and cleared certain bills that should have been rejected under LCB norms. As a result, the contractor allegedly gained undue pecuniary benefits exceeding ₹16 lakh.

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, found the first and second accused guilty under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitting the third accused. Both convicted persons were sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹17 lakh each. They later challenged the verdict before the High Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the first accused passed away, following which his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants.

After re-examining the evidence in detail, the Court concluded that the amounts sanctioned were not in accordance with contractual terms. It also noted that the Superintending Engineer had approved the contractor’s claims on the day of his retirement without proper scrutiny.

“Thus the conclusion to be reached by the Court is that regarding the above items, as part of a conspiracy hatched between the 1st and 2nd accused, before the retirement of the 1st accused, some claims were raised by the 2nd accused and in a hurry-burry manner the 1st accused granted the same on the date of his retirement. It is judicially noticeable that the 1st accused also granted amounts to various contractors on the last date of his retirement in a similar fashion and caused huge loss to the State exchequer.”

Senior counsel for the first accused argued that the prosecution had been initiated without obtaining the mandatory sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the Court rejected this contention, observing:

“admittedly the 1st accused, for whom sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 is required for taking cognizance of the PC Act offences, retired on 28.02.1991 and the investigation and cognizance for the PC Act offences against the 1st accused was taken after his retirement and Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988 doesn't provide for sanction in the case of an employee who retired from service at the time of cognizance. Therefore, this contention is found to be untenable.”

The Court upheld the sentence imposed on the second accused contractor. In the case of the first accused, it ruled that the prison term stood abated due to his death.

“Therefore the execution of the sentence in relation to the 1st accused shall be confined to realisation of fine from the accounts, if any, inherited by the legal heirs of the 1st accused, including the additional appellants,” the Court added.
(with Live Law inputs)